Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar Kalani Pani Thozhilalar Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15.7.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGOWrit Appeal Nos.1074 of 2000 & 1480 of 2001Tamil Nadu Arunthathiar KalaniPani Thozhilalar Nala Sangamrep. by its PresidentAppellant inM.Kalaimaran...W.A.No.1074/00/PetitionerTamil Nadu Arunthathiar KalaniPani Thozhilalar Nala Sangamrep. by its PresidentAppellant inSelvaraj...W.A.No.1480/01/PetitionerVs.1.State of Tamil Nadurep. by its SecretaryAdhi Dravida Welfare DepartmentFort St. GeorgeMadras-9.2.Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Boardrep. by its Asst. DirectorCarpentry and Blacksmith UnitGuindy, Madras-35.3.The CommissionerCorporation of MadrasRespondents inChennai-3...both W.As./Respondents-----Appeals against the orders of the learned single Judge dated16.6.2000 made in W.P.No.9992 of 1995 W.P.No.9992 of 1995: The Petition filed under Article 226 of theconstitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directingthe respondent No.3 herein not to evict the members of the petitionerassociation from the places where they have occupied for theirlivelihood without following due process of law on the file of thisCourt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 22.6.2000 made in W.P.No.1458 of 2000 :The petition filed underArticle 226 of the constitution of India praying to issue a Writ ofmandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent or his men or agents orsubordinates from evicting the members of the petitioner associationfrom the places they have occupied as per the allotment of 1st and2nd respondent (the names and address of occupation are given in theannexure)-----For Appellants : Mr.C.R.ChandrasekaranFor M/s. Row & ReddyFor Respondent-1 : Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Addl.G.P.For Respondent-2 : Mr.S.PackiarajFor Respondent-3 : Mr.V.Bharatidasan-----J U D G M E N T(Delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.)In both the writ appeals, as the common question of law isinvolved and similar orders were challenged, they were heard togetherand disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner is an association of footwear artisans(hereinafter referred to as the "Association"). In the year 2000,some of the members, viz. footwear artisans (for brevity "Cobblers")alleged that the Corporation of Chennai (earlier known as Corporationof Madras) were interfering with their peaceful possession in respectof the bunks allotted to them at different places. The Associationtook up the matter and preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.9992 of1995 and prayed for direction on the Chennai Corporation not todisturb its members. The learned single Judge, by the impugned orderdated 16.6.2000, having noticed the submission that the ChennaiCorporation is interfering with the peaceful possession of themembers of the Association without giving any notice, withoutdiscussing the basic facts, directed the Chennai Corporation toissue notice to the members of the Association calling upon them tovacate the land and in case they do not vacate, then to proceed toevict them forcibly to recover the possession.3. Following the said order, the other writ petition inW.P.No.1458 of 2000, preferred by the Association was also disposedof with similar direction, by order dated 22.6.2000. These twoappeals have been preferred against the aforesaid separate orders.4. The grievance of the Association is that the Court, withoutdiscussing the relevant facts, directed to proceed with the recoveryof possession, after giving notice to the members, which is againstlaw. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the StateGovernment wanted Cobblers rehabilitation and at the instance of theState Government, the Khadi Board allotted certain bunks to them. Asthey have been forcibly evicted and their bunks have been removed,the matter was discussed with the Commissioner, Chennai Corporationon 8.7.2009 and the Court allowed sometime to finalise the matterrelating to the rehabilitation of cobblers, taking into considerationthe utilisation of the funds allocated by the State. 6. Today, an affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner,Corporation of Chennai, stating the inability to rehabilitate theCobblers. It was stated therein that the Corporation Council, byresolution Nos.96/92 and 560/96 decided not to permit or to give anylicense or lease to the platform bunk shops or other petty shops. Itwas further stated that a Division Bench of this Court, vide orderdated 7.3.2001 in T.Veerasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another[W.P.No.2354 of 1989 and analogous cases], directed the ChennaiCorporation to remove the bunk shops at road margin, platform, streetcorners and other public places.7. The learned counsel appearing for the State has not disputedthe fact that the State Government earlier allocated special funds infavour of the Khadi Board for construction of bunks and itsallocation in favour of the Cobblers.8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe records.9. The Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department issuedG.O.Ms.No.1725 dated 2.9.1989, pursuant to Scheme under SpecialCentral Assistance under special Component Plan for Scheduled Castes.It was decided to allocate fund in respect of Khadi and VillageIndustries Board for making provisions of bunks to Cobblers and toallocate such bunks to them. The relevant portion of the order dated2.9.1989 reads as under:ORDER:The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi andVillage Industries Board has submitted proposal toGovernment for provision of 1500 bunks at free of cost(100% subsidy) to the footwear artisan who are below thepoverty line, at a total cost of Rs.135 lakhs from theSpecial Central Assistance for the year 1989-90. Thetotal cost of each bunk with machine is given below: (i) Cost of each bunk Rs.7,000/- (ii) Cost of leather stitching machineRs.2,000/-----------Rs.9,000/----------- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi andVillage Industries Board has requested for sanction of asum of Rs.135 lakhs from the Special Central Assistanceas 100% subsidy for implementing the proposal.3. The above proposal of the Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Khadi and Village Industries Board wascirculated to the Empowered Committee under theChairmanship of Minister (Adi Dravidar and TribalWelfare) for approval. The Committee has approved theproposal.4. As per the decision of the Empowered Committee,the Government sanction the payment of a sum of Rs.135lakhs (Rupees one hundred and thirty five lakhs only) as100% subsidy from Special Central Assistance which willbe released by M.D., THADCO to the C.E.O., T.H.K.V.I.B.,Madras for distribution of 1500 bunks to the footwearartisans at free of cost during 1989-90.5. It has been brought to the notice of theGovernment that the bunks supplied to the foot wearartisans are subjected to evictions since they areinstalled without permission from the local bodyauthorities concerned. The Director of MunicipalAdministration, Director of Town Panchayats,Commissioner of Corporations and Commissioner of RuralDevelopment are directed to issue suitable instructionsto their subordinate officers to allot suitable sites tothe beneficiaries on collection of nominal rent as inthe case of Milk booths, Transport Department-bunks etc.where the beneficiaries can have good business. TheDistrict Development Officers (Tamil Nadu Adi-DravidarHousing and Development Corporation) are directed tocontact the local body authorities concerned and get thepermission for allotment of sites from them before thebunks are allotted to the beneficiaries.6. The Government request the Director of AdiDravidar and Tribal Welfare, to obtain the list ofbeneficiaries from the various District Welfare Officersimmediately and communicate the consolidated list to theChief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and VillageIndustries Board. There should be no delay what so everin finalising the list of beneficiaries andcommunicating the consolidated list to the ChiefExecutive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and VillageIndustries Board. The Government also request the ChiefExecutive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Board to instruct the Officers of the Khadi and VillageIndustries Board to check during their periodicalinspections that the beneficiaries retain the assetsgiven to them and that they are benefited thereby.7. The technical and professional responsibilitiesfor implementing, overseeing and monitoring the progressof the scheme and for completion of the implementationof the scheme shall vest with the Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board,Madras. He should send a monthly progress report on theimplementation of the scheme to the Government by 10th ofevery month starting from October 89 with a copy to theManaging Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing andDevelopment Corporation, Madras-10. The ManagingDirector, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing andDevelopment Corporation is requested to report everyquarter of the functioning of these bunks to theGovernment. Any difficulty in implementing the schemewithin the time schedule should be brought to the noticeof the Government immediately. He should also send tothe Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and DevelopmentCorporation, the utilisation certificate for the amountdrawn by him for this scheme, in due course. TheManaging Director, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing andDevelopment Corporation shall inspect and ensureefficient functioning of the footwear artisan bunks.8. Only Hindu Adi Dravidars should be covered underthe scheme now sanctioned.9. The Collectors are requested to review theprogress of this scheme in their Plan review meetingsand also inspect the bunks during their tours.(By order of the Governor)R.A.SEETHARAM DAS SPECIAL COMMISSIONER ANDSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT."10. In spite of the aforesaid order, the bunks having notallocated in favour of the Scheduled Caste Cobblers (footwearartisans), a number of persons moved before this Court in W.P.No.5738of 1993. This Court, vide order dated 15.12.1993, having noticed theaforesaid Central Scheme of the Government and the decision of theState Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1725 dated 2.9.1989, directed theCorporation to consider the claim of those persons on the face of thedocuments submitted by them to prove their claim and to passappropriate orders granting licence to each of them within threemonths from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pursuant to the direction of the Court, a number of persons weregranted licence by the Corporation, apart from those who had alreadygot such licence since 1990, and they were provided with bunks by theKhadi Board at different places within the city of Chennai. 11. We have already noticed that the Corporation of Chennaithereafter wanted to disturb number of Cobblers by removing them fromthe respective bunks. That was the reason the Association moved thisCourt. The learned single Judge, though noticed that no opportunitywas given to the Cobblers by way of a notice for eviction, byimpugned order dated 16.6.2000, directed the Corporation to removethe members of the Association, after giving notice to them. It wasnot discussed whether the Cobblers have been granted licence by theCorporation; bunks by Khadi Board; and their rehabilitation was interms with the Central Scheme, pursuant to the Government Order dated2.9.1989 and thereby, whether, in such situation, eviction of genuineallottees were called for or not. 12. The learned counsel for the Corporation has relied upon thedecision dated 7.3.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court inT.Veerasamy case (supra). But it is not clear as to how the evictionwas made in the year 2000, i.e. much prior to the order dated7.3.2001.13. The case of T.Veerasamy (supra) relates to the eviction ofunauthorised bunk shops. There is no direction given by this Courtto evict those who have been allotted bunks on the basis of a CentralScheme and decision of the State Government and put up by the KhadiBoard. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents cannotderive advantage of the order dated 7.3.2001 passed by a DivisionBench in T.Veerasamy case (supra) for evicting such Cobblers.14. As the Scheme for rehabilitation of Cobblers (Footwearartisans) particularly, those who belong to Scheduled Castes, is aCentral Scheme, the fund was allocated to the State and pursuant tothe Government Order dated 2.9.1989, the Khadi Board has constructedthe bunk and allocated to different members of Association andCorporation had originally given them licence. In such case, it wasneither open to the respondents to evict the Cobblers from the bunkor remove the bunk or refuse to renew their licence. 15. We, accordingly, set aside the orders dated 16.6.2000 made inW.P.No.9992 of 1995 and 22.6.2000 made in W.P.No.1458 of 2000 passedby the learned single Judge and remit the case to the Commissioner,Chennai to verify the list of Cobblers who were allocated bunks byKhadi Board at different places. If the list is not available withthe Corporation, it may get the list from the Khadi Board and verifythe licence of those persons. If it is also not available with theKhadi Board, it may get the list of Cobblers from the Association,but in that case, the Association or its members will have to produce https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the copy of the relevant licence of the Corporation of those Cobblersor any evidence in proof of payment of licence fee, which may beeither photo copy or typed copy of licence. As the Cobblers, whetherthey are members of the Association or not, were allocated bunks bythe Khadi Board and were running their business at appropriate placeswithin the City of Chennai, the Corporation will rehabilitate themimmediately and if so required under law, will grant fresh licence intheir favour. If the Corporation has removed the bunks or destroyedthem, they will construct fresh bunk and place them in their originalposition. But, they may make some variation in the location so as toensure that no traffic hindrance is made in the foot path. Thisorder shall be complied with within a period of two months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it will beopen to the Association to bring the matter to the notice of theCourt. 16. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learnedcounsel for the Chennai Corporation.The writ appeals are allowed. A cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposedto be paid by the respondent Corporation in favour of the Tamil NaduState Legal Services Authority, Chennai. CMP Nos.9297 of 2000 and13214 of 2001 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkplTo1. The Secretary Adhi Dravida Welfare Department Fort St. George, Madras-9.2. The Asst. Director Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board Carpentry and Blacksmith Unit, Guindy, Madras-35.3. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Chennai-3.1 cc To Mr.S.Packiaraj, Advocate, SR.314551 cc To Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate, SR.316911 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.315382 ccs To Row & Reddy, Advocate, SR.31876, 31746W.A.Nos.1074 of 2000 & 1480 of 2001. PKB(CO)SRA(22/7/2009)